On 10 March 2012 15:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> * pg_stat_statements looks good also, I hope someone is looking at that
>
> I will take that one, if it ever gets marked RFC, but in the meantime
> I plan to spend my time elsewhere.
It has been marked RFC now.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> * pg_stat_statements looks good also, I hope someone is looking at that
>
> I will take that one, if it ever gets marked RFC, but in the meantime
> I plan to spend my time elsewhere.
>
>> At this stage the CF app isn't help
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> * FOR KEY SHARE locks looks in very good shape and so I'm spending
>> time on that with a view to committing it next week if all goes well
>
> Álvaro is a committer and is perfectly capabl
Simon Riggs writes:
> * pg_stat_statements looks good also, I hope someone is looking at that
I will take that one, if it ever gets marked RFC, but in the meantime
I plan to spend my time elsewhere.
> At this stage the CF app isn't helping us much. We need some way to
> indicate who is actively
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> * FOR KEY SHARE locks looks in very good shape and so I'm spending
> time on that with a view to committing it next week if all goes well
Álvaro is a committer and is perfectly capable of committing that
patch for himself, had we consensus on
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think a reasonable way to proceed might be to get some consensus on
> a short list of patches we're willing to try to push to completion,
> then set a schedule accordingly, and then anything that doesn't get
> done by the deadline gets kicked to
On Friday, March 09, 2012 10:13:15 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> If people are
> tired of working on the CommitFest, they're not going to get
> reinvigorated just because we let it go on for another month.
On that line: From Sundway onwards I do have time again to do reviewing. I am
not anybody is doing
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> I share your view here, and in fact the code for the patch has been
> updated in only two ways since 1/15: adding support for new commands and
> reacting to review (refactoring, cleaning, features removal, fix the
> glitch). That's the reas
Robert Haas writes:
> Just to be clear, it wasn't my intention to hold command triggers
> specifically to a different standard - but I do differentiate between
> small patches and big patches. Small patches that someone can get
> committed with an hour's worth of review can be treated a little mo
Robert Haas writes:
> There's been very little patch review going on, with a couple
> of notable exceptions like Thom and Noah, and not a lot of new patch
> versions from patch authors either, again with a few exceptions, like
> Dimitri. So it's not terribly surprising that progress is very slow.
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> This is a fair position, but I think it's a bit unfair to be applying
> such pressure to just the command-triggers patch and not all the other
> open issues. Hence, $SUBJECT: is it time to start forcing this
> commitfest to a conclusion, and if so
Robert Haas writes:
> Well, if you get to the point where you're done churning the code in
> the next week or so, I'm willing to do one or two more rounds of
> serious review, but if that doesn't get us there then I think we need
> to give up. The energy you've put into this is commendable, but w
12 matches
Mail list logo
